PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
June 28, 2010
7:00 PM
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, June 28, 2010 in Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Barbara Fenby, Steven Kerrigan, Phil Hodge, Clyde Johnson, Edward Coveney and Sean Fay. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
MINUTES
Meeting Minutes June 7, 2010
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the minutes of June 7, 2010, with noted changes.
CHAIRS BUSINESS
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
Boston Post Road West
Marlborough/Northborough Realty Trust
Correspondence from Smerczynski & Conn
Mr. Donald Conn, Attorney for the developer, is asking to continue the consideration of the ANR plan known as Marlborough/Northborough Realty Trust ANR Plan. Mr. Conn explained that their Engineer has not completed changes by the City Engineer but he does not expect any further continuances.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Hodge it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Kerrigan, it was duly voted:
To deny without prejudice the ANR known as Marlborough/Northborough Realty Trust ANR Plan.
The members all agreed that time is of the essence even though the proponent indicted the willingness to waive the time requirement. As noted by the by the City Solicitor at the last meeting once the ANR is returned, the time frame is started with 15 days left to approve. It was suggested by Dr. Fenby to deny the plan without prejudice and have the applicant resubmit once all issues have been resolved.
299 Maple Street
JEMS of New England
Resign ANR Plan
Peter Bemis of Engineering Design Consultants, Inc is requesting to have the Planning Board re-endorse the ANR Plan for 299 Maple Street. This plan was approved in January 2009; however the plan was never registered with the Registry of Deeds.
Dr. Fenby asked if Mr. Cullen has reviewed the plan and he stated that he has not seen it to date.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Fay, it was duly voted:
To refer the ANR known as “299 Maple Street, JEMS of New England” to the City Engineer for his review.
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed Zone Map Change
Map 78, Parcels 12, 38 & 39
Map 89, Parcel 77
Continuation from June 7, 2010
The Planning Board of the City of Marlborough held a public hearing on Monday, June 28, 2010, at 7:05p.m. in Memorial Hall, 3rd Floor, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough on the proposed changes to the amend the Zoning Map of the City of Marlborough, established by Chapter 650, Zoning Article III, Establishment of Districts Section 650-8, “Boundaries Established; Zoning Map”: Members present: Chairperson Barbara L. Fenby, Clerk Steven Kerrigan, Philip Hodge, Clyde Johnson, Edward Coveney and Sean Fay. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
Mr. Kerrigan read the advertisement into record.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board of the City of Marlborough will hold a public hearing on Monday, May 24 at 7:15 P.M., at Memorial Hall, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough, MA to amend the Zoning Map of the City of Marlborough, established by Chapter 650, Zoning Article III, Establishment of Districts Section 650-8, “Boundaries Established; Zoning Map”. Said map is amended by extending the Business District shown on the City of Marlborough Massachusetts Zoning Map by including in said Business District all of Map 78, Parcels 12, 38 and 39 and Map 89, Parcel 77 of the City of Marlborough Massachusetts Assessor’s Map.
A copy of Chapter 650 and the proposed amendment material are available for review in the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough, MA.
Per order of the City Council
#10-1002512
Mr. Gadbois submitted the correspondence to the Planning Board which entailed the letter that was sent to the residents of Glenbrook. He stated that since the last meeting, there was a neighborhood meeting and the attendance was low.
Dr. Fenby then opened the meeting up for general comments:
Al Broz
50 Teller Street
Mr. Broz wanted to state he was never notified that there was a public hearing, never received Mr. Elders community flyer and asked if there was a survey conducted on the effects this may have on the municipalities’ resources.
Jamey Giancola
124 Glen Street
Mr. Giancola explained that he is a current member of the City of Marlborough Fire Department, however he is speaking as a private citizen. He believes this would be taxing to the Fire Department and is adamantly opposed to the zone change.
Peter Nucchio
116 Glen Street
Mr. Nuccio is concerned about the drainage systems. He stated that work promised in connection to prior plans with the owners of the property has not been completed to date. And has asked what would guarantee was promised since their promise of the last project has not been met to date.
Matt Elder
12 Teller Street
Ward Councilor
Mr. Elder stated that he sent letters to his constituents regarding the zoning change. He stated that the general conscious of the neighbors is that they are concerned about the resident and construction traffic. He stated only one constituent would rather see apartments over retail use.
This portion of the public hearing is closed.
Mr. Johnson stated that he is concerned that the City will be losing some of its Limited Industrial zoned land. Mr. Fay stated he was not in favor of the “sliver” of LI zoning that would be the buffer to Glen Street. Mr. Kerrigan stated that he sees the point in extending the B district and that it is in the same character as the current neighborhood with this unique opportunity for development.
Several of the members encourage the developers to consider walking paths since some of the space is considered wetlands.
Mr. Fay noted that a vote should be forthcoming in time for the July 26, 2010 City Council Meeting.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To send a favorable recommendation to the City Council, as amended, be further amended by amending the Zoning Map established by Chapter 650 Zoning Article III Establishment of Districts Section 650-8 “Boundaries Established; Zoning Map”. Said map is amended by extending the Business District shown on the City of Marlborough Massachusetts Zoning Map by including in said Business District all of Map 78-Parcels 12 and 38, except that the portion of Parcels 12 and 38 which is located within fifty (50’) feet of Glen Street shall remain in the Limited Industrial District, all of Map 78 Parcel 39 and all of Map 89 Parcel 77 of the City of Marlborough Massachusetts Assessor’s Map; provided, however, that Section 650-9.F of the City Code, which otherwise would extend the regulations for the Business District portion of
Parcels 12 and 38 into the fifty-foot Limited Industrial portion of Parcels 12 and 38, shall not be applicable to said fifty-foot portion.
Proposed Amendment to Planning Board Rules and Regulations
The Planning Board of the City of Marlborough held a public hearing on Monday, June 28, 2010, at 7:15p.m. in Memorial Hall, 3rd Floor, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough on the proposed changes to the amend the Planning Board Rules and Regulations. Members present: Chairperson Barbara L. Fenby, Clerk Steven Kerrigan, Philip Hodge, Clyde Johnson, Edward Coveney and Sean Fay. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
Mr. Kerrigan read the advertisement into record
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board of the City of Marlborough will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on Monday, June 28, 2010 at 7:15 PM in Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough Massachusetts for a Proposed Amendment to the Planning Boards Rules and Regulations.
7.~~~~~~~~ Performance Guarantee
Before endorsement of the Board's approval of a Definitive Plan of subdivision, the subdivider shall agree to complete the required improvements specified in Section V for any lots in a subdivision, such construction and installation to be secured by one, or in part by one and in part by the other, of the following methods which may from time to time be varied by the applicant with the written consent of the Planning Board.
(a)~~~~~~ Approval with Bonds or Surety
The subdivider shall either file a proper bond or a deposit of money or negotiable securities in an amount determined by the Planning Board to be sufficient to cover the cost of all or any part of the improvements specified in Section V not covered by a covenant under sub-section (b) hereof. ~The amount of the security provided hereunder shall be determined by the Planning Board in consultation with the City Engineer, taking into consideration the City Engineer's standard contingency and inflation factors.
Such bond or security, if filed or deposited shall be approved as to form and manner of execution by the City Solicitor and as to sureties by the City Treasurer. The legal sufficiency of the bond shall be contingent upon the completion by the subdivider of the required improvements specified in Section V within two (2) years of the date of the bond.
If the improvements specified in Section V not covered by a covenant under sub-section (b) hereof are not completed within two (2) years of the date of the bond, such completion to be certified in writing by the City Engineer, the Planning Board shall proceed with enforcement thereof as provided in §81Y of the Subdivision Control Law unless the Planning Board first takes one of the following actions:
i. The Planning Board, on its own, grants an extension of the two (2) year completion date for a period of not more than sixty (60) days to allow a subdivider to submit the documentation required for a complete extension request; or,
ii. The Planning Board, upon request of the subdivider, grants a request not to exceed two (2) years from the date such extension is approved. Any such extension shall be contingent upon the following:~
a. Written certification from the City Engineer that the bond or other security currently in place, or in place at the date such approval is granted by the Planning Board, is in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of all or any part of the improvements specified in Section V not covered by a covenant under sub-section (b) hereof, taking into consideration the City Engineer's standard contingency and inflation factors;
b. Written certification from the City Tax Collector that all real estate taxes for the sub-division are paid to date; and,
c. Written certification from the Code Enforcement Officer or Building Commissioner stating that the sub-division is free from any violations of the City's Anti-Blight Ordinance.
(b)Approval with Covenant
The subdivider shall file a covenant, executed and duly recorded in the Registry of Deeds by the owner of record, running with the land, whereby such ways and services as specified in Section V, not covered by bond or deposit under (a) hereof, shall be provided to serve any lot before such lot may be built upon or conveyed, other than by mortgage deed.
The developer shall also note on his Definitive Plan that any and all lots within the subdivision are subject to the restrictions of the covenant.
Dr. Fenby opened the meeting to comments.
No Comments were made.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was voted:
To amend the Planning Board Rules and Regulations as outlined in the legal notice.
Mr. Fay stepped out of the room.
Shoestring Hill Moss Development
Preliminary Plan
The Planning Board of the City of Marlborough held a public hearing on Monday, June 28, 2010, at 7:30p.m. in Memorial Hall, 3rd Floor, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough on the Preliminary Plan Known as “Shoestring Hill”, located off of South Street, Marlborough, MA. Members present: Chairperson Barbara L. Fenby, Clerk Steven Kerrigan, Philip Hodge, Clyde Johnson, and Edward Coveney. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
Mr. Kerrigan read the advertisement into record.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board of the City of Marlborough will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 28, 2010 at 7:30 P.M., at Memorial Hall, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough, MA on the following Preliminary Subdivision Plan “Shoestring Hill” subdivision which proposal is herewith published in compliance with the requirements of the M.G.L. 41, §81T and is hereby set forth as follows:
NAME OF SUBDIVIDER: Moss Development
15 Brickyard Lane
Westborough, MA 01581
NAME OF ENGINEER: Connorstone Development
10 Southwest Cutoff, Suite 7
Northborough, MA 01532
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Property located on South Street, total acreage is Approx. 88 Acres
A plan of the proposed subdivision is on file in the City Clerk's Office, the Planning Board Office, and the City Engineer's Office and may be seen prior to the public hearing.
Mr. Michael Sullivan of Connorstone Engineering and Mr. Robert Moss of Moss Development were in attendance to present the preliminary plan. Mr. Sullivan showed the three plans; one conventional plan with 71 lots with a road starting at South Street and connecting through to Bracken Drive, an open space concept plan with 71 lots with a road through South Street and connecting through Bracken Drive and a third with 71 open space lots with a double barrel boulevard configuration without connecting through Bracken Drive.
Mr. Sullivan stated that he has comments from the City Engineer and is working to address those comments. Both he and Mr. Moss have met with the Fire Chief regarding the plans and they stated Chief Plummer had no issue with the double barrel boulevard that is being proposed.
Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Cullen defer on wetland delineation and interruption regulations calling for space to be set aside for recreational purposes. How Mr. Sullivan perceives is 16 lots would be affected with wetlands and 61% to 63% should remain as open space while the other space is used for homes, roads and utilities.
Mr. Moss also stated that they withdrew the Zoning Ordinance change request that was submitted to the City Council. He stated that it was met with negative feedback.
Dr. Fenby opened the floor for general comments.
Elisha Simon
147 Desimone Drive
Ms. Simon asked about the price point for the new homes. Mr. Moss stated that the market dictates what the marketability of prices is and that he will not be bound by establishing the prices of homes at this time.
George Wright
330 South Street
Mr. Wright asked which plan are they proposing to build, he also stated that the traffic is already terrible on South Street and he thinks this is a ridiculous idea. He would prefer to see the covenantal plan built.
Diane Morau-Rollin
213 Desimone Drive
Ms. Rollin asked what the process was including what kind of lot size and determination of house size. She is concerned about the average square footage of the proposed homes. She stated space should be left as open.
Brian Feeny
220 Desimone Drive
Mr. Feeny stated that if there is 8700 feet of road proposed for roadway in the first proposal, 5700 feet of roadway proposed for the second proposal and 7200 roadway for the third proposal; he asked what benefit is it to reduce roadway.
Cliff Bodenwiser
51 Leoleis Drive
Mr. Bodenwiser stated that the traffic would be greater if the people know that the roads connect through. He would also like to see the house lots spread out through the development. He also stated that the Bracken Drive needs to be repaired prior to the construction of any development.
Joel Duca
99 Beach Street
Mr. Duca is a life long resident of Beach Street. He stated that he disagreed with the fire chief and that should not be an only access road and there should be another access street. He also stated that since there is a perennial brook that runs through the proposed development and through his own yard the grounds are always wet.
Norman Wheeler
155 Leolis Drive
Mr. Wheeler asked since the three plans are shown…which plan the developer is building. He stated it looks like the developer is leaning towards the third plan.
Monique Duross
261 Desimone Drive
Ms. Duross is really concerned about the drainage systems, curbing and catch basins. Mr. Moss stated that he will be asking to do natural grass swales. Ms. Duross stated that during the last few storms she has had gallons of water in her basement and will be submitting the pictures to the Board.
Karen Kisty
273 Desimone Drive
Ms. Kisty stated that the developers want you to think all is “warm, fuzzy and green all over”, however the residents are concerned. She wanted to inquire about the runoff dissipating. She believes that the proposed grass swales would not hold the runoff.
Jerry Griep
169 Desimone Drive
Mr. Griep asked about the large power lines that traverse through the property, would they have easements on only part of the property?
Cheryl Desaultels
131 Bracken Drive
Ms. Desaultels stated that the base of the curve for Bracken Drive is already dangerous during the winter months and adding more roadways just increases the dangerous factor. She is also concerned about the developmental timeline; shape factors defined in zoning and the wetlands.
Caroline Griep
169 Desimone Drive
Ms. Griep asked if the proponents know the width of the barriers, she is asking if they would consider having more land between the lots.
Tony Martinez
148 Bracken Drive
Mr. Martinez is concerned because if they cut through to Bracken Drive, the other residents of the City will learn that this would be a cut through road to get to the other side of the City. He is concerned about children’s safety with the increased traffic this will cause.
Priscilla Ryder
Conservation Officer
City of Marlborough
Ms. Ryder on behalf of the Conservation Commission provided the Planning Board with the concerns of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Kerrigan read the letter into record.
These are the initial concerns of the Conservation Commission:
o Wetlands have been delineated by the applicant on plans, however the Commission has not done a site walk to confirm the wetlands are as they say and or determined if the stream is a perennial stream requiring the riverfront areas and larger setbacks, or an intermittent stream just requiring a buffer zone, they would not be able to weigh in on whether lots are buildable.
o Commission also noted that even at this conception level, land will need to be set aside for drainage and detention basins which will take up some lots space as well. This will need to be considered when determining number of buildable lots.
o This is a large visible track of land which has high value from a land conservation perspective, making sure the open space ties in well with the overall city wide open space plan will be critical, the Commission will look at current and future trail link to ensure wildlife corridors are protected.
o Commission recommends that the subdivision be built as an Open Space Development.
Once the wetlands have been formally confirmed, the Commission will continued to provide input on the subdivision to make sure all conservation issues, both open space and wetland protection are addressed.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
Ms. Ryder also commented that the open space configuration is shown scattered through out the plans and are considered as “sliver portions”. She stated that there needs to be a bigger buffer for wetlands and she would like to see a more useful open space.
Mr. Hodge asked Ms. Ryder if she was recommending connecting the wetlands through paths such as the past open space delineations the Planning Board approved. She stated yes, however it has been a nightmare with just these slivers of open space land because the homeowners of the lots clearly do not understand what portion is theirs and which portion is open space. Mr. Hodge agreed that corridors of open space would make more sense over slivers of open space.
Elisa Simon
147 Desimone Drive
Ms. Simon asked if there was any reason why the conventional lots could not have buffers between the lots with green space. Dr. Fenby stated that was not feasible.
Ty Rollin
213 Desimone Drive
Mr. Rollin is asking if there would be walking trails through the open space. Dr. Fenby stated it was a little premature to determine the trail system.
Krista Holmi
232 Desimone Drive
Ms. Holmi stated that she is employed by the City of Marlborough however she is speaking as a private citizen. She is concerned about the wetland, water runoff of the hill and the overall impact. She stated that she provided pictures of the wetlands to the Conservation Commission and will submit the pictures of the wetlands to the Planning Board as well.
The public hearing was closed at 8:25.
Mr. Fay returned to the room.
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
Update from City Engineer
Mr. Cullen provided a new subdivision status report and a subdivision map. Mr. Cullen also noted that he has had a pre construction meeting with Mauro Farm and that they will be starting to mobilize on the site.
Blackhorse Farms, Cider Mill Estates and West Ridge Estates (Fafard Development)
Correspondence from Councilor Delano
Mr. Delano sent emails requesting that the Planning Board be aware that there is still no progress in cleaning up the Blackhorse Farms subdivision. One resident who resides at the only house built on Blackhorse Farms is surrounded by the overgrown weeds, trash and stated it has gone too long without cleanup according to Councilor Delano.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
Mr. Cullen stated that he has been asked to review this matter by the Commissioner of Public works and will have a summary by the next Planning Board meeting in July. He also stated that he was asked by the Planning Board to review the bond amounts which he will provide at the July meeting as well.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded to Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To send correspondence to Councilor Delano stating that Mr. Cullen will be advising them on the conditions of the Subdivision at the Regular scheduled July Meeting.
Davis Estates (Bouvin Drive)
Correspondence from Robert Valchuis
Mr. Valchuis is asking for the Planning Board to reconsider their vote for the fencing around the detention areas located at 180 Farm Road and Bouvin Drive. He stated he spoke to the Building Commissioner on his accord as suggested by DPW Engineering, thinking that Mr. Reid would be the final request prior to installing the fences.
Mr. Valchuis also met with the Tree Warden for the City, Chris White, and he stated that he will be planting the 30 trees as previously discussed. He is hiring a private contractor to do this work within the next 30 days.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
Correspondence from the Building Commissioner
Building Commissioner Stephen Reid sent correspondence to the Planning Board regarding the need of fencing or additional protection around detention basins or drainage structures. He cited that the former City Code Chapter 176 titled “Swimming Pools” has been recoded as Chapter 557 is being superseded by life regulation of the State Building Code and is no longer adequate or enforceable in his opinion. He also stated that a detention basin does not fall within the definition of pools to be regulated by the fencing provision of the state building code 780 CMR Section 421.
It is Mr. Reid’s position that the Planning Board cannot use the regulations of Chapter 557 of the provisions of the state building code to regulate how the detention basins or drainage swales are constructed unless they are designed to hold water and intended for recreational bathing. He observed that the basins have never contained any water during his routine inspections.
He is also concerned about the aesthetics of the subdivision. The location is on an historic road with the Davis home being the keystone of the street corner. The created stone walls as constructed are superior and more costly then those that typically appear on a speculative subdivision and provide ample visual notification to alert citizens of their existence, embellishments in the form of additional fencing or barriers would negatively affect this signature development or the stone walls surround the basins provide.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
Mr. Cullen stated that he firmly stands by his previous letter that fencing should be around the basin and this is a public safety issue. The approved definitive subdivision plans also show the fencing around the two basins.
Mr. Hodge stated that the public safety outweighs the aesthetics.
Mr. Coveney made a motion seconded by Mr. Kerrigan, opposing was Dr. Fenby, Mr. Hodge, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Fay to waive the fence requirement. With the four members opposing, it was defeated.
Elm Farm Valley Estates (Cleversy Drive)
Correspondence from the City Solicitor
Mr. Rider sent correspondence to the residents of 96 Millham Street, 109 Millham Street and 49 Cleversy Drive. In this letters, the City Solicitor explained that there is both a sewer line as well as a water line traversing through their property. He stated that they were also made aware of the deed from the developer recites only a “sewer easement”, reserving a 30’ wide easement to the developer which will be conveyed to the City of Marlborough once the city accepts “Cleversy Drive” as a public way.
At this time Mr. Rider is asking the residents to provide them with an easement for the water line to provide a ‘water easement’. This easement will provide the City as well as the resident’s protection of both the sewer and water lines that traverse through their property. The Legal Department provided the necessary paperwork to the residents asking them to sign the documents prior to July 1, 2010.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence; to ask the legal department to provide a status update when one is available.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussion
PRELIMINARY/ OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION SUBMITTALS
Shoestring Hill, Moss Development (7/08/2010)
Correspondence from the City Engineer
Mr. Cullen has provided a summary review of the conventional subdivision plan. He states in his correspondence that he has not met with the proponent’s engineer, also noted was that the package did include multiple “cluster subdivision”. He stated that it was still to premature to have a consensus on the preliminary conventional subdivision plan.
Some of the Mr. Cullen’s concerns:
· Questioned if the Any other department heads have commented
· Noted there is not Comparative Impact Analysis
· Proposed Conventional Subdivision provided no area for designated open space
· Proponent should not that a series of test pits and borings will be required
· Lot shape rectangle needs to be provided
· Identify the number of lots that the proponent identified with steep slopes
· Locate the lots in which wetland boundaries have been identified
Mr. Cullen provided three pages of concerns for the proponent to resolve prior to moving forward. This was some concern that a lot more work at the drawing board was needed.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
The Planning Board realized at the end of the meeting that the 45 days to act upon a subdivision for a preliminary plan would expire prior to the next meeting in July. Neither a representative from Moss Development or Connorstone Engineering was available to ask for an extension of the review period. It was discussed among the Board members that there were several key issues to address prior to proceeding with the currant preliminary plans including addressing the Conservation Commission requirements and the City Engineer’s comments.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To deny without prejudice the preliminary plans known as “Shoestring Hill, Moss Development”.
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION SUBMISSIONS
SCENIC ROADS
SIGNS
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
COMMUNICATIONS/CORRESPONDENCE
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept all of the items listed under communications and/or correspondence.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Kerrigan, it was duly voted:
To adjourn at 9:25 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
Steven Kerrigan, Clerk
| 
